This chapter focuses on the application to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the constitutional concepts, principles, and techniques that were examined in Part I in relation to EC ...
More

This chapter focuses on the application to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the constitutional concepts, principles, and techniques that were examined in Part I in relation to EC external relations. The principle of conferral, the concepts of primacy and exclusivity, and the contrast between decision-making under Title V EU Treaty and the Community method are dealt with in successive sections.Less

The CFSP in Contrast with EC External Relations

Geert De Baere

Published in print: 2008-09-25

This chapter focuses on the application to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the constitutional concepts, principles, and techniques that were examined in Part I in relation to EC external relations. The principle of conferral, the concepts of primacy and exclusivity, and the contrast between decision-making under Title V EU Treaty and the Community method are dealt with in successive sections.

This chapter argues that EU environmental governance today can be analysed as an amalgam of four to five environmental governance regimes which have successively been layered on top of each other ...
More

This chapter argues that EU environmental governance today can be analysed as an amalgam of four to five environmental governance regimes which have successively been layered on top of each other over the past thirty-five years. The evolution of EU environmental governance began with the ‘environmental regime’ which was later supplemented by the ‘Internal Market regime’, the ‘integration regime’, the ‘sustainable development regime’, and the emerging ‘climate regime’. These environmental governance regimes can be distinguished in terms of their overall political priorities, legal foundations, decision-making methods, types of justification, underlying political dynamics, environmental objectives, and instruments. Despite certain modifications, key characteristics of each of the regimes are still present in the system of EU environmental governance.Less

The Evolution of EU Environmental Governance

Ingmar von Homeyer

Published in print: 2009-02-19

This chapter argues that EU environmental governance today can be analysed as an amalgam of four to five environmental governance regimes which have successively been layered on top of each other over the past thirty-five years. The evolution of EU environmental governance began with the ‘environmental regime’ which was later supplemented by the ‘Internal Market regime’, the ‘integration regime’, the ‘sustainable development regime’, and the emerging ‘climate regime’. These environmental governance regimes can be distinguished in terms of their overall political priorities, legal foundations, decision-making methods, types of justification, underlying political dynamics, environmental objectives, and instruments. Despite certain modifications, key characteristics of each of the regimes are still present in the system of EU environmental governance.

Since the end of the cold war new security structures have emerged within Europe. The end of the bi-polar security system has enlarged the number of actors with overlapping competences. While North ...
More

Since the end of the cold war new security structures have emerged within Europe. The end of the bi-polar security system has enlarged the number of actors with overlapping competences. While North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) broadened its range of permissible activities through the new Strategic Concept of 1999, efforts within the European Union aim at closer co-operation on mutual defence. This chapter examines the legal limitations for overlapping treaty obligations of NATO and EU Member States. It then argues that the EU should not pursue the idea of creating a traditional defence alliance. Rather, because of the changing understanding of defence and security, an alliance based on a clause comparable to the solidarity clause in the envisaged EU Constitutional Treaty could be a more appropriate approach in the future.Less

Common European Defence: Competition or Compatibility with NATO?

Heike Krieger

Published in print: 2007-03-22

Since the end of the cold war new security structures have emerged within Europe. The end of the bi-polar security system has enlarged the number of actors with overlapping competences. While North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) broadened its range of permissible activities through the new Strategic Concept of 1999, efforts within the European Union aim at closer co-operation on mutual defence. This chapter examines the legal limitations for overlapping treaty obligations of NATO and EU Member States. It then argues that the EU should not pursue the idea of creating a traditional defence alliance. Rather, because of the changing understanding of defence and security, an alliance based on a clause comparable to the solidarity clause in the envisaged EU Constitutional Treaty could be a more appropriate approach in the future.

This chapter analyses the variations in foreign, security, and defence policy as well as the consequences of a possible fragmentation on the positioning of the Union as a united global force. Since ...
More

This chapter analyses the variations in foreign, security, and defence policy as well as the consequences of a possible fragmentation on the positioning of the Union as a united global force. Since ‘security and defence policy’ is separated from ‘foreign and security policy’, one of the key questions concerns the dividing line between the two areas. Is it possible for Member States not to participate in the security and defence integration or does the single legal order of the Union prevents this variation? A second question concerns the more general possibilities for closer or enhanced cooperation. And, finally, a third question is to what extent the proposed new EU Constitutional Treaty further consolidates the somewhat fragmented legal regime on differentiation in the area of foreign, security, and defence policy.Less

Differentiation in EU Foreign, Security, and Defence Policy: Between Coherence and Flexibility

Ramses A Wessel

Published in print: 2007-03-22

This chapter analyses the variations in foreign, security, and defence policy as well as the consequences of a possible fragmentation on the positioning of the Union as a united global force. Since ‘security and defence policy’ is separated from ‘foreign and security policy’, one of the key questions concerns the dividing line between the two areas. Is it possible for Member States not to participate in the security and defence integration or does the single legal order of the Union prevents this variation? A second question concerns the more general possibilities for closer or enhanced cooperation. And, finally, a third question is to what extent the proposed new EU Constitutional Treaty further consolidates the somewhat fragmented legal regime on differentiation in the area of foreign, security, and defence policy.

This chapter examines as a case study the right to vote for non-citizens in Europe. It outlines how states vary greatly in the enfranchisement of non-nationals and underlines how the expansion of ...
More

This chapter examines as a case study the right to vote for non-citizens in Europe. It outlines how states vary greatly in the enfranchisement of non-nationals and underlines how the expansion of supranational protection of voting rights for second-country nationals has created a challenge of inconsistency, by putting under pressures those states with a very restrictive conception of the franchise. From a comparative law perspective, the chapter contracts the European dynamics with the experience of the United States and identifies a number of historical analogies. It emphasizes how the European system is currently unable to secure equality in voting rights and discusses whether additional reforms, including EU Treaty reforms, ought to be considered in this regard.Less

The Right to Vote for Non-Citizens

Federico Fabbrini

Published in print: 2014-02-13

This chapter examines as a case study the right to vote for non-citizens in Europe. It outlines how states vary greatly in the enfranchisement of non-nationals and underlines how the expansion of supranational protection of voting rights for second-country nationals has created a challenge of inconsistency, by putting under pressures those states with a very restrictive conception of the franchise. From a comparative law perspective, the chapter contracts the European dynamics with the experience of the United States and identifies a number of historical analogies. It emphasizes how the European system is currently unable to secure equality in voting rights and discusses whether additional reforms, including EU Treaty reforms, ought to be considered in this regard.

This book canvasses in detail the rights of private parties to enforce principles of EU law, both before the national courts and the European courts of First Instance and Justice in Luxembourg. These ...
More

This book canvasses in detail the rights of private parties to enforce principles of EU law, both before the national courts and the European courts of First Instance and Justice in Luxembourg. These originally amounted to two distinct bodies of case law. However, particularly since the advent of member state liability in damages, which was founded on the liability of EU institutions under Article 288(2), there have been increasing trends toward convergence in relevant principles in private party EU litigation; whether the defendant is a member state government authority or an EU institution. On the other hand, emphasis on ‘individual rights’ continues to be greater in cases concerning enforcement of EU law against member state bodies, while notions such as ‘individual concern’ under Article 230(4) remains a significant barrier to obtaining an effective judicial remedy by private sector actors aggrieved by the conduct of EU institutions. This book expands on the earlier work Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EC Law (OUP, 2000) by considering all three pillars of the EU Treaty. It also provides an up to date account of the rules pertaining to the enforcement of EU measures in national law, with a particular emphasis on Directives. The developments of member state remedies and procedural rules, and developments in the law on nullity review (Article 230 (4)), validity review (Article 234), and damages liability (Article 288(2)) are also detailed.Less

Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EU Law

Angela Ward

Published in print: 2007-03-29

This book canvasses in detail the rights of private parties to enforce principles of EU law, both before the national courts and the European courts of First Instance and Justice in Luxembourg. These originally amounted to two distinct bodies of case law. However, particularly since the advent of member state liability in damages, which was founded on the liability of EU institutions under Article 288(2), there have been increasing trends toward convergence in relevant principles in private party EU litigation; whether the defendant is a member state government authority or an EU institution. On the other hand, emphasis on ‘individual rights’ continues to be greater in cases concerning enforcement of EU law against member state bodies, while notions such as ‘individual concern’ under Article 230(4) remains a significant barrier to obtaining an effective judicial remedy by private sector actors aggrieved by the conduct of EU institutions. This book expands on the earlier work Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EC Law (OUP, 2000) by considering all three pillars of the EU Treaty. It also provides an up to date account of the rules pertaining to the enforcement of EU measures in national law, with a particular emphasis on Directives. The developments of member state remedies and procedural rules, and developments in the law on nullity review (Article 230 (4)), validity review (Article 234), and damages liability (Article 288(2)) are also detailed.